Supported Living West Midlands

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People were supported by staff who knew their personal and individual needs well. People’s needs were assessed which ensured people received individualised support that matched their personal preferences. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff assisted them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service upheld this practice.

This service scored 21 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s individual needs were regularly assessed and met. The service promptly responded to any changes in people’s care and circumstances and ensured appropriate support was in place for them when needed. A relative told us, “If anything happens with GP appointments, they let me know.”

Staff knew people well and helped to ensure people received care and support that met their needs, health and wellbeing. An initial assessment was completed prior to providing care and support to people, with the involvement of the person, relatives and other health care professionals. This captured people’s needs, abilities and their preferences and was used to develop care plans which helped people make informed choices about their care. Care reviews and regular monitoring visits ensured people’s care remained relevant and up to date and that staff were supported to provide effective care. A staff member told us, “The registered manager and team managers do monitoring visits. They check people’s needs are being met. We discuss what is needed for the person and any support I may need too.”

We received mixed feedback from partners linked to the service. Professionals told us things had improved since the current registered manager had been in post. Some professionals told us the provider was slow to respond for requests for information. Others told us they had no concerns about the provider and believed the new management structure would continue to improve and develop the service.

Assessments considered aspects of people’s care and support such as people's healthcare background, mobility, personal care and safety requirements. This helped ensure people’s individual needs and wishes were respected and met. People’s needs were regularly assessed which enabled the service to monitor people’s progress and ensure they received the appropriate support when required.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People were supported to have maximum control over their lives. They were directly involved in making decisions about their care and support wherever possible. A relative told us, “They include me, and [name of person] involved in the decision. They listen to my needs and help me.”

Staff told us how they supported people to make their own decisions and in people’s best interests. Staff received Mental Capacity Act training and told us how they used the training to ensure people were given choice and control over their care needs. However, care records in relation to consent indicated some staff members did not fully understand the importance of recording decisions and outcomes that demonstrated people had been given a voice.

Improvements were needed to mental capacity assessment records and best interest decisions and records related to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLs) were not clear. For example, some records completed by staff did not evidence who was consulted as part of the decision-making process, such as relevant professionals or advocates. We raised these issues with the registered manager who took action after our site visit to ensure records were accurate, up to date, and demonstrated that the principles of the Mental Capacity Act had been followed.